Does Obama pay women less than men?

posted at 11:20 am on June 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama has campaigned on the issue of “equal pay”, casting John McCain as a villain for not supporting federal legislation widening grounds and timing for pay-discrimination lawsuits.  Yet Obama may have a fair-pay issue of his own.  According to Fred Lucas at Cybercast News Service, women on his staff made $6,000 less than men on average.  McCain, on the other hand, has more women in key positions — and the women on his staff average slightly higher salaries than the men:

On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

First, one has to ask why Obama has 64 non-intern staffers while McCain has 46.  Obama doesn’t chair any committees, and the subcommittee he chairs has not exactly had a prodigious output.  The difference in salaries comes to almost a million dollars a year.  What exactly is the value that taxpayers have received for this extra assistance?  Obama has a negligible legislative record for his three years in the Senate, and has spent most of the last two years running for President, as has McCain, who managed to get by with much less.

If CNS has its figures correct, then Obama has some explaining to do.  CNS has not always been terribly reliable, but in this instance, it’s not difficult to get the correct figures on staffers and salary; they’re matters of public record.  CNS has managed to do what other media outlets have overlooked, which is to match Obama’s rhetoric with his hiring record.

Obama wants to have women get paid on an equal basis as men, which makes sense to me.  He should start with himself rather than siccing the federal government on the private sector.  As with change, clean politics, and leadership, Obama talks the talk while McCain walks the walk.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Who cares. He’ll have them all on unemployment soon.

Texyank on June 30, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Paying the women less than the men.

Anyone think that the women who supported Clinton might be interested in hearing about this?

MarkTheGreat on June 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM

First, one has to ask why Obama has 64 non-intern staffers while McCain has 46.

Political favors(?).

It’d be interesting to see who those non-intern staffers are, and how close they are to Daley, Blago, Rezko and/or Jones.

yo on June 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Anyone think that the women who supported Clinton might be interested in hearing about this?

MarkTheGreat on June 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Quite possibly.

amerpundit on June 30, 2008 at 11:29 AM

As long as he’s “chastened” all will be forgiven.

Say Obamallejah.

drjohn on June 30, 2008 at 11:30 AM

But they get to touch the hem of the Obamessiah’s suit as he walks by, and that makes up for it.

RBMN on June 30, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Seems to me the more CHANGE he preaches, the more it stays the same.

Sir Napsalot on June 30, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Hey it looks like all you “sweethearts” on Obama’s staff will be getting a raise soon.

rhombus on June 30, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Eh, Obambi will just blame one of his staffers who will be fired and thrown under the bus, then all can be forgiven.

His campaign people should start wearing red Star Trek shirts, considering how often they get sacrificed.

Bishop on June 30, 2008 at 11:35 AM

The women probably get other perks to make up for the shortfall in wages.

Maybe kissing his feet or touching his halo.

fogw on June 30, 2008 at 11:36 AM

RBMN on June 30, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Great minds.

fogw on June 30, 2008 at 11:37 AM

But they get to touch the hem of the Obamessiah’s suit as he walks by, and that makes up for it.
RBMN on June 30, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Heh, is that before or after they have laid palm fronds and rose petals in his path?

Bishop on June 30, 2008 at 11:37 AM

I’ve been having this argument for weeks with my husband, who supports Obama. Obama has NO women in any important positions in either his Senate office or his campaign stall He had a golden opportunity after securing the nomination to dump Howard Dean and install Donna Brazile as DNC chair, but he stuck with the incompetent white male over the brilliant black female.

John McCain has a woman chairing his campaign committee. He has had some very sharp women in top jobs in his Senate office for years. As a woman, I feel much more confident that John McCain will listen to women and put them in powerful positions in his Administration than I do with Barack Obama. I felt this way about Mitt Romney too – his campaign manager was a woman and he had many women in top jobs when he was Governor.

rockmom on June 30, 2008 at 11:37 AM

Another wheel comes off the engine. This sure is one mighty, fine trainwreck.

JimK on June 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM

This is perfect for a youtube ad if everything fact checks so that the figures are compatible. It’s perfect timing too. Team McCain shouldn’t wait on using this if they’re going to use it. Team Barry needs to drawn into a confrontation so that they have to answer how this equal pay stuff will work.

ninjapirate on June 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Donna Brazile as DNC chair, … the brilliant black female.

?

She is a black female. She is brilliant; but her track record in general elections is, in my mind, the reason she’s on CNN and not on Bam’s staff.

Carter, Jesse Jackson, Mondale and Gore.

yo on June 30, 2008 at 11:45 AM

rockmon,

the only ‘important’ positions staffed by competent women will have to pass the MO test first.

MO seems to be as tiny-minded as they get.

Sir Napsalot on June 30, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Wait a minute. Michelle Obama’s VP salary is $350,000 at an istitution blessed by Obama’s pork largesse. Apparently he doesn’t feel all women are second class citizens. This isn’t another of those Orwellian thingeys, is it?

a capella on June 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Wait a minute. Michelle Obama’s VP salary is $350,000 at an istitution blessed by Obama’s pork largesse. Apparently he doesn’t feel all women are second class citizens. This isn’t another of those Orwellian thingeys, is it?

a capella on June 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Finally. Something that helps Michelle’s children.

JiangxiDad on June 30, 2008 at 11:50 AM

His campaign people should start wearing red Star Trek shirts, considering how often they get sacrificed.

Bishop on June 30, 2008 at 11:35 AM

I choked on my coffee when I read that. Heh.

HawaiiLwyr on June 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Anyone think that the women who supported Clinton might be interested in hearing about this?

MarkTheGreat on June 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Conversely, do you think that McCain’s people are smart enough to have over-hired females on purpose in an attempt to pander for the votes of pissed off feminists? Just asking since it is clear that McCain has made no attempt to reconcile the pissed off voters in his own party.

highhopes on June 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Character is often defined as what you do when you think you won’t get caught.

This is the real Obama.

Talk one thing and preach another.

Classic limousine liberal.

drjohn on June 30, 2008 at 11:55 AM

“First, one has to ask why Obama has 64 non-intern staffers while McCain has 46.”

“As a community organizer in small part of a big city, Obama knows the value of organizing on a large scale is more efficient than organizing on a small scale, therefore, he decided to be more efficient by hiring more people. It also gives more people hope as well as more flexibility to change and they are much more united as a result. Lastly, it helps him stay in tip top Lightworker form. We won’t even get into the benefits of more feedback or that we wish we could hire everybody.” – All Obama Campaign Managers.

Dusty on June 30, 2008 at 11:55 AM

Maybe he thinks B*tches an Ho’s aren’t worth it…
*
My staff has grown so fast that and I had been so busy with the hard fought campaign, that I did overlook some areas that are being corrected. To make sure this does not happen in the future I have assigned a Mary Jane to oversee his staff and make recommendations.
When you have expanded and taken on so many projects over the months, it is easy to get lost. I don’t want to end up like the present administration who feels their agenda is more important then the people he serves. However, after the staffs assessment, changes will be made immediately. Retro pay raises will be given to people of equal positions. To say that I won’t make mistakes or errors just isn’t practical, but unlike the present administration, when I see something is not correct, I will correct it, even if it allows some one else to say I made a mistake…I won’t make a mistake by continuing down a path that is wrong and hurtful to people or the nation…so ends the press statement by Obama.

right2bright on June 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM

First, one has to ask why Obama has 64 non-intern staffers while McCain has 46…What exactly is the value that taxpayers have received for this extra assistance?

Do you think maybe a few of these staffers may be using some of their “spare” time on the Obama campaign? Oh, but that would be illegal – that would never happen…

eeyore on June 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM

right2bright on June 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM

That’s pretty good. So good I have to wonder about you.(just kidding):)

a capella on June 30, 2008 at 11:58 AM

I think this could be devastating to Obama…especially coming on the heels of the “get over it” comment. However, this story needs to originate from somewhere other than CNS. I agree that data is data but the data will be ignored while the source gets crucified.

Queasy on June 30, 2008 at 12:01 PM

The women probably get other perks to make up for the shortfall in wages.

Maybe kissing his feet or touching his halo.

fogw on June 30, 2008 at 11:36 AM

No, it’s “Here’s the Brasso, sweetie. Shine my halo.”

Wethal on June 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM

The Obama camp should have seen this coming.
They should correct the situation immediately.

This is as bad as McCain not paying taxes on his property. McCain immediately paid up, and that means the matter is closed, right?

You will all give Obama the same courtesy on this situation, right?

Duh – taking an average of all the staffers obviously doesn’t tell the whole story. Which positions are the women in vs the men? Are those positions in a lower pay scale? Obviously the next step is to do an ethnic breakdown of each staff followed by an age breakdown and a Celtics/Lakers fan breakdown.

As for “Why Obama has 64 non-intern staffers while McCain has 46″, who gives a shit? Does this mean he has too many or McCain not enough? And beside how the heck would any of you people know what the right number of staffers is anyway? That’s right – you don’t.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM

I suspect Obama has more staffers because a bigger state needs more caseworkers, more district offices, etc. All house members have similar budgets but senate budgets are partically tied to the population of the state represented.

BuzzCrutcher on June 30, 2008 at 12:10 PM

As usual, Drywall is trying to distract attention from his boy by calling up discredited irrelvancies.

Ed has already shown why this issue is not that important.
If you want to try and prove him wrong, go ahead and try. Just ignoring his arguments is wrong, and so typical of you.

MarkTheGreat on June 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Although the idea of Equal pay for equal work sounds good as a soundbite, in practice it will be very difficult to impliment. Consider if you will, a man and a woman with the same job description, one of which is recently hired, each of them doing the same job. The recent hire is fresh out of college, with a new degree, the other has been working at this job for 15 years. Now, if the woman is the new hire, she could complain that she’s doing equal work, yet isn’t being paid the same. At which point, the government would have to get involved, and extort with the force of law, an equal level of pay for the woman. Of course the follow up question is, if they plan to impliment this, will it also apply if there are 2 men, or 2 women in a similar situation?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on June 30, 2008 at 12:14 PM

This is as bad as McCain not paying taxes on his property. McCain immediately paid up, and that means the matter is closed, right?

It isn’t McCain’s property. It is Obama’s staff.

You will all give Obama the same courtesy on this situation, right?
Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM

This one stings a lot, doesn’t it Dave? You’re gonna have to type really fast.

a capella on June 30, 2008 at 12:16 PM

I agree that equal pay for equal work is an incredibly bad idea.

On the other hand, it’s an idea that Obama has endorsed. At least for other people.

MarkTheGreat on June 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM

Will Obama say that his previous statements in favor of equal pay were “inartfull”, or were they merely overheated campaign rhetoric, not meant to be taken seriously?

MarkTheGreat on June 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Or maybe

“That’s not the equal pay I used to know”

MarkTheGreat on June 30, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Conversely, do you think that McCain’s people are smart enough to have over-hired females on purpose in an attempt to pander for the votes of pissed off feminists? Just asking since it is clear that McCain has made no attempt to reconcile the pissed off voters in his own party.

highhopes on June 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Maybe McCain just hires the best people he can find. A lot of them happen to be women. There are plenty of very capable women in Democratic circles too, but Barack Obama can’t seem to find them or hire them.

rockmom on June 30, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Go back and look at how many women are involved in the Chicago Democratic machine. This is where Barack Obama comes from. In that world, women fetch the coffee.

rockmom on June 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM

SEXIST!!!!!!

Hypocrit Democrat = Hypocrat.

SEEEEXIST HYPE-O-CRAT!!!!!!

– —– –

Enough of that.

The Hill-bots oughta love this bit of news (if they ever hear about it).

The Hype-o-crats undoubtedly hope they can change the subject.

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Dave, Obama’s making promises in his campaign for equal pay for equal work. These statistics should be analyzed better, but it doesn’t look good for him.

As far as McCain’s taxes go, Cindy McCain paid her delinquent taxes on the condo she has provided for her aunt to live in as soon as it was brought to her attention. I can’t believe Mrs. McCain broke a campaign promise like that. Oh, wait…

“You people”? You can’t do any better than that?

And Bishop? Thanks for a great laugh.

PattyAnn on June 30, 2008 at 12:33 PM

ahhh… the candidate of hope and change strikes again!!!

He was HOPEING that no one would notice the lack of CHANGE he was paying his women…

Romeo13 on June 30, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Throw Sweetie under the bus!

(Barry’s catalytic converter is getting a little funky.)

profitsbeard on June 30, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Conversely, do you think that McCain’s people are smart enough to have over-hired females on purpose in an attempt to pander for the votes of pissed off feminists? Just asking since it is clear that McCain has made no attempt to reconcile the pissed off voters in his own party.

Yeah, highhopes, we all know women don’t know nothing about politics. They should just stay in the kitchen and talk about shoes and makeup. And host Tupperware parties. Stupid women wanting higher education and having jobs.

P.S. I am a woman with a higher education and a decent job. But I’ll bet I’m overpaid and needed to fill some sort of chick-quota.

mjk on June 30, 2008 at 12:45 PM

The difference in salaries comes to almost a million dollars a year.

G. Charles on June 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM

“The difference in salaries comes to almost a million dollars a year.”

And the difference will be greater now that he will be increasing back-pay. “What extra benefit did we get…?”

G. Charles on June 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM

And the difference will be greater now that he will be increasing back-pay. “What extra benefit did we get…?”

G. Charles on June 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM

Well, someone had to be doing SENATOR Obama’s job the last couple of years, cause he sure hasn’t been doing it.

Romeo13 on June 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM

I 100% agree this is a absolutely a huge fu** up on Obama’s part.
He should have corrected it long ago.
However, again, I don’t know the exact makeup of his staff and neither do you. Therefore, a simple average of all the staff salaries doesn’t tell the story. And the same goes for MacCain’s staff.

But again, once he corrects it, does he get a pass?
Or does this haunt him to his death on blogs like this who just can’t move on?

But hey – this is a rightie blog. No mercy for Obama – I understand that -I just thought there might be the slightest shred of objectivity.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 12:53 PM

And beside how the heck would any of you people know what the right number of staffers is anyway? That’s right – you don’t.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Everyone knows that 47 is the exact right amount of staffers. Did you sleep through kindergarten?

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2008 at 12:57 PM

Would it be horribly un-PC for me to say “Bro’s before Ho’s”?

Oops..too late

webproze on June 30, 2008 at 12:57 PM

He doesn’t get a pass from me. I am sick of liberals preaching one thing to America and then practicing something else. The only enterprise Barack Obama has ever run in his life is his Senate staff, so yes, women have every right to make a judgment of him based on how few women he has put on that staff and how little he pays them.

This is what happens when you run for President on a tissue-paper resume. What thin experience you have is fair game for microanalysis – your frirneds, your fundraisers, your preacher and your staff.

rockmom on June 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM

BO’s solution: to encourage his female employees to get barefoot, pregnant and on welfare. It’ll be Bush’s fault, of course.

Christine on June 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Christine on June 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Iron My Shirt!

rockmom on June 30, 2008 at 1:08 PM

The hopenchange bus just ran off a cliff.

MB007 on June 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM

But hey – this is a rightie blog. No mercy for Obama – I understand that -I just thought there might be the slightest shred of objectivity.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Measurable data like salaries is not objective? Dave, is rockmom right? The only executive experience Obama has is running his Senate staff? We can’t count his campaign staff as falling under executive command, because to this point they are apparently making all the bad decisions in the campaign without his knowledge.

a capella on June 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM

This is as bad as McCain not paying taxes on his property. McCain immediately paid up, and that means the matter is closed, right?
Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Could you explain this?
You don’t think you can make one of these type of statements without being called out do you?
You are saying John McCain did not pay his property taxes?

right2bright on June 30, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Lefties like him have natural inclinations to waste other people’s money and to absolve themselves from the rules they insist everybody else follow.

whitetop on June 30, 2008 at 1:30 PM

right2bright

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143775/

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am indeed saying McCain didn’t pay his property tax.

Just another detail he should have made sure was taken care of so as to not give the Dems any ammo. Same for Obama on this hiring and salary thing.

And these are just the first two mudballs. Both sides are going to spit out the mud on a frequent basis from here until November – this is going to be the ugliest campaign in history, and blogs will only fan the flames of pettiness.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM

“Barack Obama is just plain mean.”

OhEssYouCowboys on June 30, 2008 at 1:41 PM

“http://www.newsweek.com/id/143775/

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am indeed saying McCain didn’t pay his property tax.”

Again, these were Cindy McCain’s taxes. Not John McCain.

PattyAnn on June 30, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Neither he nor McCain know how much they pay anyone on their staff. Although it does mach BTMN look like a hypocrite.

roux on June 30, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Do you think maybe a few of these staffers may be using some of their “spare” time on the Obama campaign? Oh, but that would be illegal – that would never happen…

eeyore

If they aren’t working on the campaign there can’t be much for them to do. How many people does it take to write that press release titled, “Why I Voted Present.”

snaggletoothie on June 30, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Again, these were Cindy McCain’s taxes. Not John McCain.

PattyAnn on June 30, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Dave apparently thinks wives are fair game,….sometimes.

a capella on June 30, 2008 at 2:09 PM

If this gets any publicity, watch for:
Obama to deny it.
Obama to say he has raised the salaries so all are equal.
Obama to suggest that John McCain is behind the publicity.
Obama to cut his staff down to show he’s serious about changing Wash…just kidding.

Doug on June 30, 2008 at 2:10 PM

First, one has to ask why Obama has 64 non-intern staffers while McCain has 46.

Another question would be “Why does McCain even have 46?”

Harpoon on June 30, 2008 at 2:18 PM

If this gets any publicity, watch for:
Obama to deny it.
Obama to say he has raised the salaries so all are equal.
Obama to suggest that John McCain is behind the publicity.
Obama to cut his staff down to show he’s serious about changing Wash…just kidding.

Doug on June 30, 2008 at 2:10 PM

You forgot the just a distraction and racist gigs. As we speak, his staff may be undergoing genetic testing to prove he’s just trying to level the playing field.

a capella on June 30, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Ah, PattyAnn, so Cindy’s assets are entirely separate from John’s. Like her private jet he uses to campaign with, right? You can’t have it both ways.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM

Dave, why do you persist in this? Your diversionary tactics get tiresome. The thread is about Obama’s chauvinistic attitude towards women regarding pay in the workplace, while his campaign promises the opposite. Why don’t you explain how the buck for that avoids stopping at Obama’s desk as a measure of his executive talent, and forget trying to make the equivilancy shuck stick against the wall?

a capella on June 30, 2008 at 2:45 PM

On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator.

What are they complaining about? When he’s supreme ruler for life they probably won’t even be allowed to work.

peacenprosperity on June 30, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Dave Rywall

I bet small children are afraid when dave walks down the street and waitresses spit in his food.

peacenprosperity on June 30, 2008 at 3:00 PM

a capella – I already said Obama fu**ed up big time on this and that he needs to remedy the situation fast. Can you not read?

I only brought up McCain’s tax fu** up as an example of mud thrown by the other side, that, once McCain had taken steps to remed the situation, would still be flung by the Dems who would be never satisfied by his attempts to make things right.

Similarly, in this case, it doesn’t matter what Obama does to fix it – none of you yahoos will accept it.

And besides none of you know whether or not McCain’s staff is bloated or not, how the pay is actually broken down, the levels of the jobs women have,
how the salaries of his staff compare to other senators’, etc etc. It’s just typical blogger outrage at half facts and speculation. Next.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM

peacenprosperity – thanks for your childish and pointless post – you’re quite the intellectual double threat.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 3:11 PM

It wasn’t pointless to those who get a chuckle out of your angry and deranged posts.

peacenprosperity on June 30, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Yes, Cindy has separate property. Legally. I didn’t ask for anything *both ways*. I was just exposing your ‘truthiness’.
As someone else here so wisely said, you are all about the smokescreens and I won’t waste my efforts trying to combat your disingenuousness.

PattyAnn on June 30, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Duh – taking an average of all the staffers obviously doesn’t tell the whole story. Which positions are the women in vs the men? Are those positions in a lower pay scale?

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM

This is a good point, Dave. I assume this nuanced view of yours means you’re aware that the whole “equal pay” crusade is yet another dishonest scam propagated by liberals. Because when they scream about how women make 78% of what men make, the way they come up with that figure is to average the pay of all women and all men, without taking into consideration any of those factors you mention.

misterpeasea on June 30, 2008 at 4:08 PM

a capella – I already said Obama fu**ed up big time on this and that he needs to remedy the situation fast. Can you not read?

Why should he remedy it if the salaries are justifiable for the job descriptions? If he has chosen to keep women at lower paid positions, isn’t that his right?

I only brought up McCain’s tax fu** up as an example of mud thrown by the other side, that, once McCain had taken steps to remed the situation, would still be flung by the Dems who would be never satisfied by his attempts to make things right.

Except you were wrong. It had nothing to do with McCain.

And besides none of you know whether or not McCain’s staff is bloated or not, how the pay is actually broken down, the levels of the jobs women have,
how the salaries of his staff compare to other senators’, etc etc. It’s just typical blogger outrage at half facts and speculation. Next.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Absolutely. As mentioned above, if he chooses to keep women below a position ceiling which doesn’t justify higher wages, he should do that. He shouldn’t let public perception of his attitude towards women change his management policy. That’s real courage, and my hat is off to him if he stays the course.

a capella on June 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Who cares. He’ll have them all on unemployment soon.

Texyank on June 30, 2008 at 11:25 AM

True dat!

TheSitRep on June 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM

McCain also has a woman in his First Lady spot. Whereas Obama chose a ornery badger. (Note: If anyone construes this as a racial codeword, I will be very sad. Its just that badgers are very violent and aggressive creatures.)

AbaddonsReign on June 30, 2008 at 4:45 PM

right2bright on June 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM

That’s pretty good. So good I have to wonder about you.(just kidding):)

a capella on June 30, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Try it, it really pisses you off after you do it. You realize how easy it is to fool the public when you have the MSM behind you.
Last week one of the regular posters didn’t catch my Obama sign off (she ask that I put it in italics from now on), she jumped all over me. Of course she blamed the italics and not her reading skills. But it shows how easy it is to write the excuse, after they attack or make a mistake.

right2bright on June 30, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM

That one has been debunked, nothing you can do about people who lie, or who propagate lies…like you.
Several points need to be made:
First, this was his wifes, by pre-nuptial, John has no say in his wifes finacial.
His wife is not running for office.
She did pay, it was in an escrow account, and the escrow account did not send it to the proper address of the lein holder.
And in case you didn’t know this, when you pay into an escrow account, you are not told exactly how the money is dispersed, let alone the address they are sending it to.
Most everyone reporting this has backed away, and many apologizing.
But you apparently are one of maybe two people who believe it to be true.
Just because someone tells a lie, you don’t have to believe it…or do you…

right2bright on June 30, 2008 at 7:45 PM

you get paid less sweetie.

Chakra Hammer on June 30, 2008 at 7:58 PM

… Which positions are the women in vs the men? Are those positions in a lower pay scale?
Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Apparently BHO tracks all women staff towards the positions on that low end.

(strictly speculation)

soundingboard on July 1, 2008 at 2:42 AM

However, again, I don’t know the exact makeup of his staff and neither do you. Therefore, a simple average of all the staff salaries doesn’t tell the story. And the same goes for MacCain’s staff.

But again, once he corrects it, does he get a pass?
Or does this haunt him to his death on blogs like this who just can’t move on?

But hey – this is a rightie blog. No mercy for Obama – I understand that -I just thought there might be the slightest shred of objectivity.

Dave Rywall on June 30, 2008 at 12:53 PM

OK. Less snark. More objectivity.

If the sample was across the board, top to bottom then if BHO has more men in top level positions, yes, the results will be skewed.

Hell, Axelrod’s pay alone would be enough to taint the poll.
And the poll ended in Sept. ’07 so maybe Solis-Doyle will balance the equation in the next poll.
Unless she’s working for free.

Or still working for The Glacier. (shhhh)

[I said less snark. Didn't say no snark.]

soundingboard on July 1, 2008 at 3:04 AM

Would it be horribly un-PC for me to say “Bro’s before Ho’s”?

Oops..too late

webproze on June 30, 2008 at 12:57 PM

RAAAACCCIIIISSSSTTTT!!!111!!

Now go wash your brain out with DKOS.

soundingboard on July 1, 2008 at 3:08 AM

I only brought up McCain’s tax fu** up as an example of mud thrown by the other side, that, once McCain had taken steps to remed the situation, would still be flung by the Dems who would be never satisfied by his attempts to make things right.

So you’re slinging mud to demonstrate the tactic of mudslinging?

soundingboard on July 1, 2008 at 3:18 AM